I thought it left a little bit to be desired, but Krauthammer makes the point that Romney’s job wasn’t to win political news junkies like me. It was to win over the middle of the roaders. And that – Charles asserted, he did both “tactically and strategically.”

Romney went large, Obama went very very small – shockingly small, he maintained.

Krauthammer said that he would have gone after Obama on Libya with a baseball bat, but that’s why Romney has won elections, and he hasn’t even contested them.

The Hammer said that the high point of the debate for Romney was when “he devastatingly leveled the charge that Obama went around the world on an apology tour. Obama’s answer was ask any reporter and they will tell you it isn’t so – that’s about as weak an answer as you can get. Krauthammer added that Romney’s response was “to QUOTE Obama saying we dictate to other nations, and Romney said we do not dictate to other nations, we liberate them from dictators.”

I think Mitt Romney won tonight’s foreign policy debate. President Obama looked peeved and angry when he wasn’t laughing. He interrupted Romney numerous times. Romney seemed calm, cool and unflappable. He certainly didn’t come off as some sort of warmonger the Democrats want you to believe he is.

Obama’s whole campaign — and his debate strategy — has been to “win the newscycle” and lob a bunch of small-bore attacks and micro-appeals. He keeps doing that and doing that.

I’ve been saying this for a while: You can win every newscycle and still lose. Because people don’t vote on whatever dumb story you pushed into the newscycle. They’re voting the the future, and the country, and their children.

As it happens, horses played a pretty important role in recent military history as well. Just ten years ago, our invasion of Afghanistan began on horseback. Members of a group called Operational Detachment Alpha (ODA) 595, part of a larger force named Task Force Dagger, which consisted of Green Berets, airmen from the Special Operations Aviation Regiment, and combat controllers from the US Air Force. ODA-595 fought alongside members of the Northern Alliance, horseback, in the first-ever battle against the Taliban.

I suppose the Obama gameplan was to portray Romney as another George W. Bush, and Romney defused that by declaring, “we can’t kill our way out of this problem.” Not the argument you’re used to seeing from a Republican against a Democrat.

Obama’s near-explosion — “bayonets and horses… this isn’t Battleship” will stand out. Boy, was president Obama snippy and sneering during that answer. Obama couldn’t contain his disdain and contempt for Romney in any of these debates, and it really flared tonight.

After a sleepy performance in the first presidential debate, Barack Obama seems to have taken some coaching from his vice president. While the president certainly doesn’t have the teeth to pull off the dreaded “Biden smirk,” his coaches seem to have asked “What else you got?” and found the equivalent in the Obama “death stare.” But will it have a more unnerving effect on Mitt Romney or on the viewing audience?

Everybody noticed it. It was the first thing my husband commented on – “Look at him lean forward and stare – what’s with that?”

So weird…

Look, there are ways of playing mind games where you don’t come off looking like a jackass. Team Romney knows how to do it – these Chicago Alinskyites are trying too hard.

There’s a reason Obama’s personal approval numbers are falling since these debates. There are many Americans who are seeing Obama’s true character for the first time.

If you knew nothing about Barack Obama and Mitt Romney except what you saw in their final debate, you would have assumed that Romney was the incumbent president, that Obama was the challenger trying to unseat him, that Romney was clearly leading in the polls going in and that he remained there going out. You wouldn’t necessarily think Romney won the debate, but you would think he was winning the race.

It was absolutely clear that both candidates understood that this debate was entirely about Mitt Romney. Romney’s only goal was to seem presidential, and Obama’s only goal was to make Romney seem not presidential. By that measure, Romney clearly achieved his aim and Obama clearly did not. Romney did this by treating this debate very differently than the other two. He didn’t really try to score points, and he wasn’t afraid to express agreement with Obama, which he did remarkably often. His goal was to answer every question with a calm, responsible attitude and convey sobriety and level-headedness. The calculation must have been pretty simple: voters are not greatly concerned with foreign policy this year, but they wouldn’t elect someone they don’t trust on foreign policy. So having clearly conveyed his differences with Obama on domestic issues and his own domestic agenda, Romney merely needed to be a plausible commander in chief—to convey deep knowledge and the right attitude, to avoid getting rattled, to deny Obama the chance to label him a war monger or an amateur, and to waive off attacks on himself by returning to his core domestic message and reminding voters that the president is running on nothing.

this debate kerfuffle comes down to a distinction between biggest “foe” and biggest “threat.” Obama said Romney called Russia “the biggest geopolitical threat facing America … not al Qaeda.” Romney called Russia “our No. 1 geopolitical foe.” And Romney is correct that he quickly noted in the same interview that “the greatest threat that the world faces is a nuclear Iran.”

Sister Toldjah called out PolitiFact on this. Disappointing to see that organization botch their one mission, which is get the facts right.

It’s hard to be disappointed with an outfit that you already know is ridiculously biased.

Romney won the third presidential debate – and how he did it was encapsulated in a single exchange. The candidates were discussing military spending and Romney had just accused Obama of making harmful cutbacks. The President wheeled out what must have seemed like a great, pre-planned zinger: “I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military’s changed.” The audience laughed, Obama laughed, I laughed. It was funny.

But here’s why it was also a vote loser. For a start, Twitter immediately lit up with examples of how the US Army does still use horses and bayonets (horses were used during the invasion of Afghanistan). More importantly, this was one example of many in which the President insulted, patronised and mocked his opponent rather than put across a constructive argument. His performance was rude and unpresidential. Obama seemed to have a touch of the Bidens, wriggling about in his chair, waving his hands dismissively and always – always – smirking in Romney’s direction. By contrast, Romney sucked up the abuse and retained a rigid poker face all night. He looked like a Commander in Chief; Obama looked like a lawyer. Who would you rather vote for?

In their third Presidential debate analysis, the Jurassic Press Media last night and thus far this morning have failed utterly in their role as fact checker and record-corrector – at least when it comes to what President Barack Obama had to say.

As but one glaring example, there were the President’s absurd assertions regarding the auto bailout and China.

“If we had taken your advice Governor Romney about our auto industry, we’d be buying cars from China instead of selling cars to China.

“If we take your advice with respect to how we change our tax codes so that companies that earn profits overseas don’t pay U.S. taxes compared to companies here that are paying taxes. Now that’s estimated to create 800,000 jobs, the problem is they won’t be here, they’ll be in places like China.”

This is not the first time the President has made these claims. It is not the first time the Press has taken him – utterly unexamined – at his word.

We won’t. Let’s go piece by Presidential piece, and see what we find.

“If we had taken your advice Governor Romney about our auto industry, we’d be buying cars from China instead of selling cars to China.

I was disappointed with Mitt’s performance last night, it’s exactly what I feared all along . . . . “going full Bill Kristol”. There was a couple of times there when I thought they were going to jump up and start a chorus of Kumbya together. If the two candidates agree with each other as much as these two did last night on many serious issues, “why the hell would we change partners in mid stream”? Mitt needed to distinguish himself and his policies from the failed policies of obama. He did however have some great moments like, the apology tour.

Libya was a total missed opportunity, which I guess Team Mitt decided they didn’t want to re litigate. A huge mistake in my opinion. I would’ve had two Louisville Sluggers and knee capped the President on that issue and others. Team Mitt evidently concluded that it would be safer to play “rope a dope” and give the appearance of being presidential. I heard that they were playing for the women vote and that women don’t like discourse or arguing. Someone tell me the last time the “good guy” rode off into the sunset with the Girl after getting his @zz kicked?

Fortunately for Mitt and us his outstanding performance in debate #1 has carried him. I give the President the slight edge on last nights debate, until you fact check his BS, but not many observers hang long enough to get the correct information. So first impressions are ever lasting. Hopefully most people were diverted elsewhere watching the other battle going on with the guys who really do carry Louisville Sluggers.

The ONLY answer I want to know is . . . . . where the hell did Frank Luntz find Anna Nicole Smith and how did she end up in the front row of his Focus Group? Inquiring minds want to know. [meme]